Moreover, if we allow the state to discriminate based upon compelling interests, doesn't the state have a pretty compelling interest to elevate at least some minorities to the upper echelons of society?

No, a state doesn't. A CPI can't be just whatever government officials want them to be. The interest has to be COMPELLING. I think that the state does have a compelling state interest to help the under privileged, which is why class based AA should be the only form of AA used.

Living under a two government system, federalist and state, states are allowed to give special considerations to promote the advancement of their own citizens.

I will not wade into this discussion, because it seems clear, once again, that people are stuck in their ways on both sides. The only I wanted to say is to please not appropriate the words or concepts of Dr. King for an agenda that does nothing to remedy many of the problems with which he was concerned. There is nothing that irks me more than the blatant appropriation of anti-racist ideals to support racist agendas. The idea of colorblindness is an end in of itself, not the means to the end. Colorblindness is not a means to colorblindness. It's simply naive for people to intimate that if race wasn't made an issue, it wouldn't be an issue. The truth is, race still matters in profound, immense, severe, negative ways. You don't erase the subconscious, institutional, or explicit racism by pretending that race doesn't exist. Ignoring race does not remedy the persistance and impact of racism. All it does is maintain the status quo. If policies discriminiated for hundreds of years (and still do in many cases), taking those policies off the books now and saying that all races are equal does not address the impact those policies still have in the present day.